India

I would rather weaken france and force the british to spend there rather then inda. Either less french troops, smaller navy or something. Maybe both and increase the german navy. Not enough to plow over the uk, but will at least be a threat, and the uk will think twice about attacking it.

That way the uk will only think about india if the ottomans are knocking on the door. Just limit it to one art to 3 infantry ratio and  when that time comes, the uk will have the ability divert the recources for the defence.

Another option is to rejig Persia into 4 provinces, each disorganized an effectively treated as independent neutrals.

I dont like the idea of more zones in this game as it will make it ever slower.

My suggestion to the India problem as well as the suggestion to lack of choice and lack of balance in this game is to make Bulgaria a separate state starting with 6Inf/2art and worth 6IPC.

More territories is dependent on faster movement.

Using full SRM the distances are less important; moreover it seems better if the relative distance between Berlin and Paris, and Berlin and Moscow is better represented.
Nevertheless making Moscow further from Berlin perhaps means adopting the 1 turn = 6 months system, putting automatic US entry back a couple of rounds. Then again I think AUSE shoudl be dependent on Russian collapse.

I too think India should have a unit limit, but 3 is way too low IMO. Maybe it could be based on what touches sz 29 (more of a regional thing).

Start out that India’s base production is the same as its IPC value (4 units). It can produce 4 units whether India is contested or not. The other territories that touch sz 29 can add to India’s production by the IPC values of each territory (Persia+2, Meso+3, and Arabia+1), as long they meet these requirements when UK’s turn starts.

1. The allies are in complete control of said territory (India doesn’t get bonus production for contested).

2. If the territory in question is friendly (say Russian controlled Meso), and the UK has at least 1 unit in it.

3. If the territory in question is owned by the UK (say Arabia, or UK controlled Persia), then the UK doesn’t need to station a unit in it.

4. (optional) Egypt can have a negative impact on bonus production of -2 (can’t effect base production). This only happens if Egypt is in CP control, if contested it has no effect. So say UK controls Persia, but has lost Egypt, it is a wash for bonus production (both valued at 2).

This may not seem like much but in the UK’s first turn they can only drop a max of 5 units in India (India 4 + Arabia 1 = 5 total. Even if the Russians come down and take Meso on Russia’s first turn, the English wouldn’t have a unit there when their first turn starts. This may slow them down when you consider OOB they could drop 10 inf units turn 1. The Turks may be able to contest some of those territories keeping India’s production down because India’s production is based partially on what is going on in the region when UK’s turn starts. The most the UK can drop in India would be 10 (which is a lot), but the CP may be able to limit it.

Maybe something similar needs doing with UK home income; make it much more vulnerable to German sub interdiction.

Or, simply deduct UK income for German ships in any SZ in the Atlantic or surrounding Britain.

The UK is overpowered both in terms of overall income and ability to place units at either edge of the warzone.

I love your idea WILD BILL, it is the best I have seen by far.

The way I see it is that there are two possible solutions to the India problem, either make Germany slightly stronger in the west (slightly more naval, ground, or maybe some actually useable Submarine Warfare rules) therefore forcing the UK to spend money in the Atlantic because right now they really don’t have to since France can hold Paris even w/o support unless the Germans literally send everything they have to France (i.e. all of Hanover and Berlin go west) but this makes them just too weak vs Russia and I still am uncertain if they could take Paris. The other option is to limit India’s production in some way, and this is the option I will explore since it is easier to see the problems/benefits of various balancing ideas without play testing them.

By playing out the game it is obvious that limiting India to 4 or less production for the entire game would make it way too easy for the Ottomans to take India, considering their income after taking some territory in the Balkans and the fact that they start with more units than the UK in the theater.

However, something clearly needs to be done to limit the UK’s early spending in India, because otherwise any allied player with any sense will just buy 10 units a turn in India for a few rounds and completely overpower the Ottomans. I appreciate the attempts at historical accuracy like limiting/preventing the UK from building heavy units (art, figs, tanks) in India, but in reality India had about the same production capabilities as the Ottomans if not better considering that the UK could transport materials there from the homeland. I don’t want to alter the game board at all if at all possible, and overall I just want the changes to be as easy as possible (and maintaining traditional A&A mechanics, i.e. no infinite railroad, just balance the game with OOB, the FAQ, and a couple additional minor rules (like WILD BILL’s idea).

WILD BILL’s idea would take some testing to see if the UK could still smash the Ottomans in the first 4 turns, but I doubt it since for at least the first few turns the Ottomans would have at least the same if not more production capability than India. This would also add some more strategic gameplay to the theater as both sides try to control the new production mechanic for India. Basically if the UK wants to cripple the Ottomans, it should take at least 5-6 turns of steady building before they can get the upper hand, and neglecting the Western Front for this long would have consequences, leaving the UK with tough decisions to make about their spending. It would be nice for the UK to have any decisions, because in my experience they should basically spend everything possible in India for 3-4 rounds until the Ottomans are backed up all the way to Constantinople, then either go for the kill on the Ottomans or start building a large landing force for France.

The most important thing to remember here is that we are trying to add strategic options, rather than make the game even more strategically limited than it already is (this is what would happen if we completely limited India’s production to a small, unchangeable, number). IMO the best way to add options to the game is to make Germany a bit stronger somehow as I stated at the start, but I think that WILD BILL’s idea could certainly make the middle east a battlefield rather than a mass-grave of Ottomans.

Maybe pentalize the british then? How about an increase in the cost for units to be put in india. For every land troop you put in india, you have to pay 2 more ipcs for each infantry and 3 more for artillary. 4 More for any other unit that is bought there That way the British will be more inclined to pay for its units in britain, and if it wants to recruit in india, itll be more taxing on the economy. That way there isnt a cap limit, and can be improved by making gains by campaigning.Infantry will be the norm since artillary will be horribly expensive, industrial items like that should be rarer. If people feel the british are being to penalized too much, you could always reduce the rolls for the ottoman units by one to make the feel of the front better.

As well as these, also make Germany much stronger, or France weeker. That way we have a british player who can win or lose the game for the allies based on how they manage their recources.

The simplest balance is the Munich production centre, which increases the German threat to Paris meaning more UK units are needed for the Western Front.

How silly is it that the UK can place new units as far away as India, yet Germany cannot build in (more populous) western Germany?

Wanted to bring this post back from the dead. I just got 1914 and just had my first play through. Been thinking a lot about strategies (on of the reasons I love axis and allies games). It seemed too easy to dump most of Great Britain’s economy in India. And I wanted to make a house rule to restrict it to 4 units or 1/2 of Great Britains income (similar to how India is separate in 1940 global).

Is there anyone that has played it more that still has feelings about what to do with India. Is it fine OOB and the pressure on France should be enough that Great Britain needs to spend IPC in France and this doesn’t even matter?

We say only 4 units. Amy number is ridiculous.

I would suggest a 6 unit per turn cap in India, coupled with a $1/sub/turn penalty for the UK for every German sub west of the North Sea.

That will be enough to give the UK some interesting choices – maxing out India with 4 inf, 1 art, 1 dye every turn could leave the UK without enough income to win a naval war in the atlantic, and it could lead to enough progress into Turkey to pay for itself, or both, or neither. It depends on the details.

I think limiting India to 4 units a turn would lead to the Ottomans getting huge every game…even if they don’t sack India, they will own Egypt, Mesopotamia, and sometimes Persia. Even modest pressure on Venice from Austria will stop the Italians from attacking Turkey’s other flank, the Russians are too poor and desperate to provide any meaningful aid, and nobody else is close enough to help.

The Turks have never done anything in any game I have played, even with the 4 India build limitation. Egypt has never fallen to them .
I am sure you have played more than me, though, Argothair.

Allow unlimited non-combat rail movement. Then the CPs can reinforce their fronts by rail to wherever they’re most needed, countering the Allies sea convoys and India teleportation console.

After all the Berlin-Baghdad railway project is what started the war in the first place.

I’ve only played twice, wittman, I just have a habit of sounding confident even when I’m not. When you have limited India to 4 builds per turn, was anyone besides the UK attacking the Ottomans? Did Germany wind up in control of south africa?

I have probably played 6  times with the 4 unit  rule.
SA has never fallen, as far as I can remember. If it did, it was very short lived. The Russians help out. And the two Cruisers the Turks own are attacked by all three Allies nations , one after another until they have been sunk, thus eliminating that threat.